OK, I'm definitely not a single-issue voter.
I look at a number of issues and balance it all out in order to make a choice. Things that are important to me cross a broad spectrum from the economy, healthcare and aging, crime, education, and more.
My Good and the Common Good
Those issues that are important to me are obviously influenced by my needs and concerns along with those of my family and friends. I also believe in the concept of the greater good.
There are a bunch of other things, of course, but there is one issue that pretty much influences all of those other things -- I'm a gay man in America.
After all those debates (including the one on Logo), after all the punditry, caucuses, primaries, and now on the verge of Super Tuesday, I have to say I'm not completely enthused nor convinced by either choice yet.
Take a jump and take a poll, too.
Ed Note: I am undecided. For good reason, I believe.
Devastated by 2004
I'll tell you all that after BushCo took their second term in 2004, I did not feel safe.
That may sound dramatic or paranoid or a little assuming, and I had no real reason at the time (it's not like I've got an active file with the FBI), but there was just something in my gut that made me feel like being a gay man in the US in 2004 was a significant step backward.
It's not like I'm necessarily vulnerable in any way -- at least no immediate threats: I'm a white male, I make a very good living in a creative industry, for a company that has a GLBT non-discrimination policy, in a city and state that are progressive on nearly all GLBT issues except marriage.
But with the climate of hatred generated by the right-wing lunatics in 2004 and their death grip on another four years, who could tell what would happen?
Back to the Candidates
I was impressed with Kucinich and Gravel. They were both unequivocal about marriage equality. That's not incredibly important to me as a single guy, but a lot of my friends are coupled and it's important to them. Nonetheless, a candidates ideas about marriage are good insight into how they will handle the rest of the GLBT issues.
I'm no activist though I do believe there are times when something needs to be done or it never will. Take for example Gavin Newsome; he went out on a limb to offer marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. He was beaten back, but it was definitely something and now we actually have states that offer full civil unions and one that offers marriage. Along the same lines, I think Bill Clinton's DADT was a step forward even if it showed us what was wrong with the policy.
So what of the two remaining candidates?
Before continuing, I'll note that both meet my requirements on all aspects so far, so there's absolutely no need to go into anything other than the GLBT issues.
Here's my assessment so far, facts only gained from the Human Rights Campaign's questionnaire (PDF):
Federal recognition of state civil
HRC +
BO +
ENDA
HRC +
BO +
Federal hate crimes bill
HRC +
BO +
Federal same sex civil marriage rights
HRC -
BO -
Support same sex civil unions
HRC +
BO +
Federal benefits for same sex couples
HRC +
BO +
Coverage under FMLA
HRC +
BO +
Access to survivor benefits
HRC +
BO +
Equal tax treatment for same sex couples
HRC +
BO +
Domestic partner benefits for federal employees
HRC +
BO +
Opposes bans on adoption based on sexual orientation
HRC +
BO +
Immigration/Supports Uniting American Families Act
HRC +
BO +
Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
HRC +
BO +
Funding for HIV and AIDS/Ryan White Care Act
HRC +
BO +
Comprehensive age-appropriate sex education
HRC +
BO +
So... not a lot of anything going on there. Neck-n-neck. The marriage stance doesn't surprise me at all. But I'd like to sit down and actually talk to them about their answers on a couple things:
- Is it not discordant to be against marriage but for equal tax treatment, survivor benefits, etc?
- Why would a civil union not provide all the same state and federal benefits of 'marriage?'
Again, marriage isn't a pressing issue for me, so it might be a short conversation -- but my previous point remains valid that their position on marriage can be indicative of other actions.
Speaking of actions there is one thing that I'm having difficulty resolving: When Obama took the stage with Donnie McClurkin, gave him a platform for spewing hate, and then defending that choice as a good one, I feel like Obama was more interested in the support of one person, a homophobe, over the support of an entire community.
It bothers me. Sometimes a lot.
So that's about it: they both meet my criteria for overarching themes like healthcare, the economy, immigration, foreign policy (but I wish they would both end the frigging embargo of Cuba) and diplomacy, and all.
Let me who you're supporting and why.
Namasté.